Why are tea garden workers in Jaigaon protesting a land port project?

A land acquisition dispute in Alipurduar has raised questions over transparency, compensation and rehabilitation.

What began as a land acquisition exercise for a proposed Integrated Check Post (ICP) near the India-Bhutan border has now turned into a major confrontation between villagers and the administration in West Bengal's Alipurduar district.

Residents of Toorsa Tea Garden, backed by the Paschim Banga Cha Majoor Samity (PBCMS), allege that heavy earth-moving machines entered agricultural land on 16 July and began levelling it despite protests from local families. They say the land, cultivated by Adivasi families for generations, is a major source of livelihood and their only asset.

The administration has not publicly responded to the allegations.

What is the project?

The proposed Jaigaon Integrated Check Post (ICP) and Land Port is intended to improve cross-border trade and movement between India and Bhutan. According to the Land Ports Authority of India (LPAI), the Detailed Project Report (DPR) was prepared in September 2021 and the West Bengal Government was asked to initiate land acquisition.

Residents, however, argue that they remained largely unaware of the acquisition process until this month.

Why are villagers protesting?

The protesters insist they are not opposed to the land port itself. Their objection is to the manner in which the land is being acquired.

According to PBCMS, the first official document made available to affected residents was the minutes of a meeting held on 4 June 2026, which were shared only on 16 July 2026. The organisation argues that this came years after the project had already been planned.

Villagers have also questioned why inhabited and cultivated land is being acquired when, they claim, vacant land is available nearby.

What are the compensation concerns?

The villagers say several aspects of the compensation package remain unclear.

Among the issues they have raised are:

The LPAI website reportedly refers to a project covering 122 acres, while local authorities have informed residents that only 30 acres are required.

Compensation has reportedly been announced only for certain dwelling houses.

Employment has been promised only to eligible members of project-affected families, subject to eligibility, suitability and availability of vacancies.

For many residents, these assurances are insufficient.

Families say they depend not only on their homes but also on areca (supari) plantations, crop fields, cattle sheds, small shops and other livelihood assets. Many have no significant source of income beyond tea garden work.

The promise of future jobs paying

₹25,000–₹30,000 per month has also been met with scepticism, with residents arguing that most tea garden workers are unskilled labourers and may not qualify for such employment.

Allegations against local authorities

PBCMS has alleged that villagers seeking information about the acquisition process have faced intimidation from local political functionaries and have been warned of criminal cases if they continue protesting. It also claims that a large police presence has created an atmosphere of fear.

The organisation has further alleged that local political leaders are facilitating the formation of a syndicate to supply construction materials and labour for the project. These allegations have not been independently verified.

Political backdrop

The protest has also acquired a political dimension.

According to the organisation, residents were assured by the local MLA and Member of Parliament before the elections that they would receive fair compensation if the project proceeded. Villagers now say those assurances have not been fulfilled.

What happens next?

An emergency Right to Information (RTI) application seeking key documents relating to the acquisition and rehabilitation process has reportedly been filed by a resident, requesting a response within 48 hours.

Meanwhile, PBCMS has called for:

An immediate halt to all construction and land levelling until transparency is ensured.

Public disclosure of all acquisition and rehabilitation documents.

A comprehensive survey of all project-affected families and livelihood-dependent persons.

A legally compliant compensation and rehabilitation package covering agricultural land and livelihood assets.

Written guarantees on employment and rehabilitation.

An end to alleged intimidation of residents seeking information.

As the dispute continues, the central question remains whether infrastructure development can proceed while retaining the confidence of the communities whose land and livelihoods are directly affected.